Re Speaking generally,scientific ideas aren't based on proof. They are based on accumulating evidence

Of course one can’t prove anything, however one can be fairly
sure certain things – e.g. the tooth fairy – are not proven to exist.

I use the term proof
loosely, because it is extremely tiring to keep typing sentences like "an
experiment as per the scientific method to provide evidence to support the
hypothesis" , i.e. being ultra precise, esp on free forums in relies
read by few people – I am that accurate in the book however,

As I say I write a lot of stuff, and I generally get the
impression, from the replies I receive, that though I write very carefully it
is not always read as carefully, but you seem professional and intelligent so I’ll
put some effort in here. (please let me know if you are reading my replies
carefully or not- so we are not just
talking at each other)

So, I must stress again, there is very little point you
reading my replies if you are only
considering your own current pov and defending it – because if so then that is
all you will be seeing.

The Emperors new
robe a logical analysis.

You must be pretty logical to be an engineer so consider the
vital importance of the parable of the ‘emperors new robe’

If you are told you are seeing an emperor wearing a totally invisible
robe then what you see matches perfectly with what you think – therefore it
seems obvious the situation has been fully understood and no further
investigation is necessary...

And, I assume you would agree - It must be that anyone who
questions your correct view must be wrong – and therefore there is no point even
considering what they are saying.....

Or – hopefully not, and you can see the importance of
considering either the emperor is wearing an invisible robe – or – he may be
JUST as he seems , naked.

So, it is essential in science that one considers All
logical possibilities, and does not just stop at the first one one hears or
likes.

And, anyone reading this, i.e. hopefully including you,must be honest with yourself...( i cannot do
this for you ) - in that you have to honestly consider that you may be only
"considering " one pov , and if that is all you are doing then that is
all you will see.

Whether the pov i offer is closer to the truth, right, or
wrong, you cannot know this if you are not considering it) - e.g. this preamble
is important because if I have a genuinely new paradigm to offer, then you won’t
see it unless you are honest with yourself re are you considering what I am
saying , i.e. actively thinking about it and trying it out – as opposed to Only
trying to think of ways to doubt it ?

Re your points

Re I would say that
time is inferred by state change. Without time,nothing changes. Conversations don't happen. Quorans don't swap ideas.

I would say : state change is state change, without energy
nothing is changing Conversations can’t be happening. Quorans can’t be swapping
ideas.

It is scientifically ‘provable’ that without energy things don’t
change, for the claim ‘a thing called time is needed also’ – you need an experiment
to show this – and not just an experiment that shows things near black holes are changing more slowly – and experiment
that shows there is a future/past/ and thing called time that is slowed etc.

Re :One can argue
about the essential meaning of time but the fact that things happen ( at least
give the the illusion of doing so) implies time.

David, you may be right or wrong, but we aren’t able to confirm
the truth from an invalid starting point.

Consider if I say “One
can argue about the essential nature of Ghosts but the fact that we hear
unexplained noises , and mysterious witness accounts implies Ghosts.

Then you can see how I am jumping to a conclusion.... I'm already
assuming what my observations will conclude.

Re this – please check out this excellent video on
confirmation bias

2,4,8 16 Can You Solve This? (byVeritasium )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

the elephant in the room

so Re :One can argue
about the essential meaning of time but the fact that things happen ( at least
give the illusion of doing so) implies time.

I would say : One can argue about the essential meaning of
timeOr one can question whether we may be completely wrong from the outset to assume a
thing called ‘time’ exists, so as to possibly have a meaning .

(hopefully as a logical guy you can see this approach doesn’t
start with an assumption – nor does it stop us getting to a point where we
conclude time – if – such a thing
exists)

Re - but the fact
that things happen ( at least give the illusion of doing so) implies time.

I would say: - the
fact that things exist move and are interacting seemingly only in a ‘now’ , implies
that things exist move and are interacting seemingly only in a ‘now’

hopefully again you can see this approach doesn’t start with
an assumption etc.

Ie imo it is absolutely
essential to consider the first, most simple and obvious possibility initially
– and at this point you will either understand that or not .

i.e. can you see that from your replies I can tell you have never even considered that things “may just exist and move ?”

note I'm not asking you at this stage if you think things “may
just exist and move ?” –

I'm asking you“ can you see that you have never even
considered that things “may just exist and move ?” “

Ie you may have dismissed the possibility without ever
having seen or considered it – and this is the point that led me to write the
entire book – ( as I say in this vid at 2:00 ish) realising that Ptolemy,
romer, Galileo kepler plato newton Einstein hawking tegmark plank Maxwell Lorentz
Aristotle descarte kant hubble Feynman and hawking etc etc etc all have
wonderful writings apparently about a thing called ‘time’ – and yet not a
single one asked, answered or dismissed the possibility ... that ...

“if matter just exists and
interacts – not heading into afutur nor leaving a past – we might fool ourselves
otherwise if we don’t realise our own ‘memories’ are just part of this system.”

And like you, and virtually all of us, all these people are
happy to accept that a undefined, invisible, intangible unobservable past and future exist.. apparently in a way we
can’t even imaging...unless someone can ‘disprove‘ this..

– this is In my opinion
so stunningly unscientific that no one even notices it ( the elephant in the room)

more general aspects
of 'time' v ‘Time-lessness’

Does Time exist? How
'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSJ8A-w78xM

RE : What sort of
proof would you require to satisfy yourself that there is a past and a future?
What experiment would you suggest? How would we acquire the necessary evidence?

Ok , re this – this is either going to be a turning point
for you if you grasp what I'm saying, or you will feel a smug sense of
satisfaction and confidence if you miss my point , and this will be accompanied
by a sense of superiority...stemming perhaps from confirmation bias.

RE : What sort of
proof would you require to satisfy yourself that there is a past and a future?

You have to understand, if YOU are claiming he existence of this
extra ‘intangible’ things or places, then you – or anyone supporting the theory
that a thing called time exists has to define and ‘prove’ what they are on about.

You ( they ) have to provide the definition of what you
think exists, and the experiment and evidence –

You can’t ask someone who thinks the world is “just as it
appears”, and who thinks they can show the theory of time to be moot, to define an experiment to prove the existence
of something even the experts can agree a definition of.

So, David, you are confident at this point you need only to
consider that ‘time’ exists, so please give me your definition, and of the past
and future, and the experiment you think confirms the past, and the future are
not just ideas formed on our minds because the world is just full of matter
that is just moving and interacting.

I say, What experiment would you suggest? David, your
confident the thing exists, so you must know a lot more about it than me –
surely it doesn’t quite make sense to strongly believe in something, and reject
alternative povs, if...

-not only don’t you
have an experiment to provide supporting evidence for your belief, but also

-you can’t think of
one anyone has even produced an experiment to test the belief

This stunning failure of so many scientists to apply the
scientific method to the theory of time amazes me.

Re How would we acquire the necessary
evidence?

I’ve no idea, I'm not a supporter of the theory , but
consider, if you believe in something, and you have no idea what evidence might
support it, or how to acquire the evidence,
and if the evidence you think you have ( eg patterns in our minds called memories, can be explained
a far simpler scientifically testable way), then it may be worth thinking more carefully
about an idea you may have just accepted without much thought.

Re: To most
scientists, time is implied or, if you won't accept that, axiomatic.

I would say: most
scientists use different definitions of time in different places- e.g.
they will say its ‘the position of a hand on a dial’, or its ‘operational’, or
its ‘really real’, or its ‘probably emergent’, or its ‘really is a dimension’,
or it “really isn’t a dimension, or ‘no one knows etc etc etc.

And I hope re this you can see the other elephant in the
room ???

Please...find me a post by a scientist who has not just
tried to define a thing called time, but one who has also ‘considered’
that they may be wrong to assume time, and instead things may just exist and
move.

Re: To most
scientists, time ... , axiomatic. ( self-evident or unquestionable.)